Peter: I’m ok with the text below.
Thanks! Alvaro. On April 9, 2021 at 4:12:43 AM, Peter Psenak ([email protected] (mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > > 268 In cases where a locator advertisement is received in both a Prefix > > 269 Reachability TLV and an SRv6 Locator TLV - (e.g. prefix, prefix- > > 270 length, MTID all being equal and Algorithm being 0 in Locator TLV), > > 271 the Prefix Reachability advertisement MUST be preferred when > > 272 installing entries in the forwarding plane. This is to prevent > > 273 inconsistent forwarding entries between SRv6 capable and SRv6 > > 274 incapable routers. Such preference of Prefix Reachability > > 275 advertisement does not have any impact on the rest of the data > > 276 advertised in the SRv6 Locator TLV. > > > > [major] "e.g. prefix, prefix-length, MTID all being equal and > > Algorithm being 0 in Locator TLV" > > > > This text should not be an example because those are the fields that > > should match. Please make it clear: "The locator advertisement is > > both TLVs is considered the same when the following fliends match..." > > (or something like that with better words). > > what about: > > "In case where the same prefix, with the same prefix-length, MTID and > algorithm is received in both a Prefix Reachability TLV and an SRv6 > Locator TLV the Prefix Reachability advertisement MUST be preferred.." > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
